Now, switch! Individuals’ responses to imposed switches between exploration and exploitation

Christina M Bidmon,Siri Boe-Lillegraven

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101928

Christina M Bidmon, Siri Boe-Lillegraven

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101928

Copy DOI

Abstract

Individual ambidexterity is an important micro-foundation of organizational ambidexterity. However, switching back-and-forth between exploration and exploitation can be challenging for individuals. Prior research has mostly focused on bottom-up approaches to stimulating individual ambidexterity, yet many organizations are characterized by greater top-down control. Exercising control may complicate the pursuit of individual ambidexterity because it amplifies switching resistance. We draw on an observational study of facilitated strategy workshops to explore the role of switching resistance and steps that can be taken to deal with it in top-down settings. Our findings suggest that imposing switches on individuals tends to trigger a distinct pattern of behavioral responses. Furthermore, we find that increasing control and offering emotional support can reduce switching resistance and help individuals execute ambidextrous work tasks. Our study contributes to the literature on individual ambidexterity by extending it from bottom-up to top-down settings. Specifically, we identify emotional, cognitive and behavioral drivers of switching resistance and unpack the process leading up to resistance. Furthermore, we identify organizational measures relevant for addressing such resistance and resolving ambidexterity at the individual level.

Highlights

Scholars have recognized that individual ambidexterity is an important micro-foundation of organizational ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch and Zimmermann, 2017; Tempelaar and Rosenkranz, 2019)
Informed by insights from literatures on task switching (Koch et al, 2010; Leroy, 2009) and metacognition (Gangemi et al, 2015; Thompson et al, 2011; Thompson and Morsanyi, 2012) we propose a model of the process leading up to switching resistance
Our findings confirmed a tendency of individuals to resist switching by reinforcing either exploration or exploitation

Summary

Introduction

Scholars have recognized that individual ambidexterity is an important micro-foundation of organizational ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch and Zimmermann, 2017; Tempelaar and Rosenkranz, 2019). Extant literature has largely assumed a bottom-up approach to individual ambidexterity, where individuals are supported in making their own informed choices about how to divide their time between exploration and exploitation (Adler et al, 1999; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Kauppila and Tempelaar, 2016; Mom et al, 2015; Tempelaar and Rosenkranz, 2019). Studies have to date paid limited attention to how individual ambidexterity can be ensured in settings where organization members have less autonomy on such choices. This seems surprising, given many workplace contexts are characterized by standardized procedures and behavioral expectations that constrain individuals’ choices on how to spend their time (Gioia and Poole, 1984)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion